Translate

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Army should not be used for political gain

One
of the more alarming outcomes of the so called “surgical strike” on
Pakistani positions in Jammu & Kashmir is the attempt to drag the
Indian Army into politics.

For this both the ruling and the opposition parties are to blame, as well as some retired army officers. The politicians’ motives are electoral, in view of the coming Uttar Pradesh elections.

The Defence Minister instead of
shielding the army from controversy, has been most assiduous in using it
for his party’s publicity

The
greater blame rests with the ruling party, where the Union Defence
Minister who, instead of shielding the army from controversy, has been
most assiduous in using it for his party’s publicity.

One
of the sad facts of democracy are the base things done and said in
election time, however, the army is too important an institution to be
used for electioneering.

Posturing

The basic facts were laid out on the very first day by the DGMO, Lt Gen Ranbir Singh. The
army conducted strikes on targets along the Line of Control to preempt
so-called non-state actors from launching attacks on India.

This
was a one-off action, but in acknowledging it, the government has
signalled a posture of “surgical deterrence” which will hopefully deter
future cross- LoC attacks. The Indian Army is a volunteer force which maintains an apolitical posture and emphasises professionalism.

It has played a significant role in building the nation by its secular and non-sectarian approach. Recall,
that before the arrival of the British, Indian armies were constantly
battling each other on a regional or sectarian basis.

For
their own reasons, the British wanted a force which would not get
involved in internal uprisings, and so, they carefully recruited and
maintained the force in cantonments, separated from society and paid
them through a central treasury.

After
independence, too, the government saw the value of this and encouraged
the army to remain apolitical, separated from the society both
psychologically and physically.

But for the small mutiny of the Sikh soldiers in the wake of Operation Bluestar in 1984, this has worked well.

Patriotism

The
problem today is of political movements that are trying to stoke
ultra-nationalism, and in the process seeking to conflate the status of
the army as ultra-patriotic deshbhakts.

This
goes against the grain of the army and its outlook. The average person
who joins the army, as a jawan or officer, does not do it out of
ultra-patriotism, or to “serve the nation”, but because it is a job that
comes with social respect, a reasonable income and a life-time pension.

It raises the status of the family of the soldier or officer and is a means of upward social mobility.

However, there is one critical difference; the military job requires you to put your life on the line, on occasion.

Fortunately, independent India has not been involved in any major war, so the risk of death has remained low.

In
any case, the soldier confronts the possibility of death as part and
parcel of his professional commitment, not bravery and deshbhakti.

All commanders take calculated risks and do not play with the lives of their men, there is no such thing as secular fidayeen.

The
Special Forces do undertake high risk missions, not just because they
are brave, but that they are highly trained and have a sense of
professionalism inculcated through their rigourous training and their
special weapons and tactics.

Their
trade-craft and strong esprit-de- corps makes them comfortable in
conducting operations which would appear near-suicidal to others.

Here there is also need to look into this use of “shaheed” for a soldier who dies in battle.

This
is a religious category used by countries like Pakistan as well. What
we need is a distinct category, something like that of France where
soldiers who died in war have the designation “Mort pour la France”
(Died for France).

This is a legal category that provides for special benefits for the families of those so designated.

Professionalism

All
of us want a brave army, but bravery is never enough. The fearsomely
brave Rajputs would order their women to commit jauhar (self-immolation)
and go into battle knowing there was nothing to live for thereafter.

But the Rajputs lost many wars. What the modern Indian republic needs is a military that wins every time.

So it must be well equipped, not just with weapons systems, but highly trained, educated and motivated personnel.

They
should be well paid and professionally satisfied, but also distracted
from the many storms that always buffet the country- the beef
controversy, the water wars of Karnataka, the reservation riots in
Haryana, the Maratha agitation, the Maoists and even the Kashmiri
agitation. Their orientation must be relentlessly on their need to defeat external enemies.